I live in Los Angeles and I'm lucky enough to write about the thing I love most: movies. I'm a graduate of Vassar College and Northwestern University and for 15 years I worked at Forbes mostly covering the entertainment industry. Although I've moved into the world of corporate journalism, I still contribute blog posts here.

Many in Hollywood were caught off-guard earlier this week when Universal Studio head Adam Fogelson was ousted and Jeff Shell, until a few days ago the chairman of NBC Universal, was brought in as his replacement.

Fogelson grew up in the movie business. Since 1998 he had worked in Universal’s marketing division devising campaigns for films like The Fast and the Furious and Notting Hill. He was elevated to the post of Universal Pictures Chairman in 2009 and this past year saw the studio execute a major turnaround. Thanks to movies like Despicable Me 2, Fast and Furious 6 and Identity Thief, Universal is currently the second-highest grossing studio (domestically) in Hollywood.

Jeff Shell is a TV guy. A Harvard MBA, Shell was president of FoxFox Cable Network Group before he took over as CEO of TV Guide International. From there he moved to ComcastComcast, where he most recently oversaw all of the NBC Universal’s international business from a base in London.

The different experiences of the two men might not seem like a big deal outside of L.A., but in Hollywood, it’s huge. For most of the history of Hollywood, movie studios were run by the men with the best connections to the town’s talent pool. Valuable leaders were the people who could get big stars and directors together to make huge hits.

Today, the studios are increasingly being run by clear-eyed executives who see the dramatic changes happening in the industry as our viewing habits shift from theaters to the home. Studios, which are all now parts of larger media conglomerates, don’t need creative geniuses at the top. Underlings can build relationship with CAA and WME. These public companies need strategic thinkers who won’t be afraid to make big changes that might shake Hollywood’s understanding of how movies are made, where they get seen and how they make money.

“It’s a recognition that distribution of entertainment is fragmenting,” says Amir Malin, founder of Qualia Capital and former CEO of Artisan Entertainment. “It’s critical to have an executive in charge who has a keen understanding of changing market conditions so that you can respond and re-position your content investment stratgey.”

Shell is only the latest executive to take over a movie studio with little or no experience developing and distributing movies. In January, Kevin Tsujihara was named the head of Warner Bros. studio. Tsujihara previously ran the studio’s home video division. He won a grueling three-way race for the top position against Bruce Rosenblum, who ran TV, and Jeff Robinov from the film studio.

But the new leaders show where companies like Comcast and Time WarnerTime Warner see their priorities. Disney has had amazing success with Robert Iger at the head. Iger’s background was at ABC before he started rising through the upper ranks at Disney.

“Iger knew how to expand Disney’s scope of vision, eyeing potential sources of new entertainment properties from anywhere in the company,” says Jeff Gomez, CEO of Starlight Runner Entertainment, a company that helps studios translate their intellectual property to different platforms.

The biggest change we’re likely to see from these new leaders? Expect the window between when a film hits theater and when it hits home viewing to shrink dramatically.

“At some point, that four month window has to be evaporated,” says Richard Greenfield, media analyst at BTIG. “Maybe there’s a reason to have some window but a movie basically plays for four weeks in theaters and then it’s left sitting there for four months. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Traditional Hollywood, afraid of rocking the boat with the theater owners, has so far resisted this kind of change. But the town may not have a choice for much longer. Men like Shell and Tsujihara were put in charge to squeeze every possible penny out of each studio’s intellectual property. That might not mean better movies but it’s sure to mean smarter business.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

GREAT! Scumbags are going to turn our Hollywood into another Japan’s entertainment industry. Quality will get worse and worse while executives and the studios wring every last penny out of every last piece of intellectual property that the studio beat to death already and reboot them all and make sequels and more garbage that isn’t even barely watchable. Thanks a lot guys. Way to ruin the LAST export this nation has. When the greater interest of the whole outpaces the self-interest of the non-creative executive class, then Hollywood will be worthy again. Until then, it’s just going to get worse and worse.

The author is missing the bigger, sadder picture. It’s not about “how movies are made, where they get seen and how they make money.”

It’s about WHAT movies are made. You want 12 months of superhero sequels and $200M special effects extravaganzas based on graphic novels tailored to the Chinese audience? I’m sure that’ll satisfy the quarterly-numbers and make shareholders very happy. However, audiences won’t be very happy, once they’ve mainlined, and then forgotten, the latest bland, big budget animated whatever.

I understand Forbes is not interested in the creative health of an industry, as much as its financial health (in the case of movies, the former has become irrelevant to the latter). That said, some of us still respond emotionally to movies and remember, re-watch and discuss movies seen 10, 20, 30 years ago (the dark ages).

The equation used to be, “make a good movie, market that good movie and people will see that good movie.” Today, the equation is “find a pre-digested intellectual property, throw $250M at it and hope its domestic opening weekend and international numbers boost our quarterly earnings statement.”

Truly sad. And they wonder why the cultural conversation has shifted to HBO, FX, Showtime. etc.

I agree that creatively, the studios are putting themselves at huge risk. But I would argue that the independent film community is turning some very high-quality stuff and as you mentioned, TV is better than ever. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that we look for quality where we can find it. We might not get another Taxi Driver or Chinatown but we never would have had shows like Breaking Bad or The Sopranos 30 years ago.

The independent film community is definitely cranking out more thoughtful product. However, those films have to compete for screens against Man of Steel, Lone Ranger, Star Trek, etc, the behemoths that monopolize the multiplexes. That means the average person, the person most in-need of being weened off the empty calories of studio summertime product, won’t see these movies in a theater, and may not see them on DVD because they don’t get the promotion afforded the studio films.

And regarding profit, the issue is degrees. There are small movies that make many multiple times their budget and are extremely profitable. However, Best Exotic Marigold Hotel costing $10M and earning $175M worldwide is not as sexy to shareholders as Man of Steel costing $225M and make $675M. Even though Marigold will, in the end, be more profitable.

Also I believe what caused Breaking Bad and Sopranos to happen is the proliferation of cable channels needing product, along with pay services realizing they need classy, high-quality shows to entice new subscribers. There is no objective proof that twelve months of quality movie going options couldn’t co-exist with the quality TV and cable options. Of course, I’m glad House of Cards, etc. exist. It’s great. But it’s not a zero sum game.

Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures Classic and TWC seem to be holding down the fort for quality movies. I think if the Oscars were to disappear, you’d see graphic novel adaptations 52 Fridays a year until one of the studios went bankrupt for greenlighting too many $250M flops.

MBAs are running hollywood? Certainly explains the complete lack of any creativity in hollywood these days. Certainly proves what idiots hold MBAs….they never grew up past thier fascination with super-heros………they probably believe they are super heros. One thing has been proven over the last 50 years, when MBAs show up en-mass in an industry the long term outlook for that industry is doomed.

Historically, no matter who is in charge of a movie studio — whether theoretically strategic or a talent-oriented — movie companies just don’t make money in any consistent way. I’m the co-author of the book “Curse of the Moguls” http://quantummedia.com/Links_Reviews/The_Curse_of_The_Mogul that covers executives and management who run various media platforms, and in the book, we discuss why movie companies, don’t consistently make money — big budget or small budgets. The variability of the returns is attributable to the hit driven nature of the business. And the low average level of returns is a function of competitive conditions — the generally low level of barriers to entry (why entrants like Miramax, Lionsgate, Turner, etc. could enter) along with the intense competition among the major studios.